BoyBrumby
Englishman
Strong-ish argument to be made our all rounders are more likely to score runs than the alleged specialists currently though, I'd say.Eh, Dhananjaya de Silva is basically just a batsman who rolls his arm over at this level - 7 wickets in 17 Tests. Three spinners and one quick is a perfectly legitimate balance on an absolute bunsen (assuming that's what they read this pitch as) IMO, especially when your third spinner is an overall much better bowler than who the second quick would be.
England's lineup is weird, but it's always going to be weird with the allrounders they've got I guess. I reckon Curran will be the one who doesn't end up getting much of a bowl (maybe even just one opening spell per new ball), so hopefully he makes it count with the bat. I'd have probably picked two more specialist batsmen than England ended up going with.
Agree it makes the balance look all over the place, but seems little point in playing (say) Denly over Curran, S because he's nominally a batsman.
Better judges than me think Sam will end up a batting all rounder in due course too.
Was about to splutter my indignation at the very suggestion, but his MO does look as if it's slightly more suited to Bunsens than English tracks (readers may want to insert their own "but he's not English" style quip here). Lateral movement isn't Keats's friend.Jennings actually looked very good from what I saw today.
Who'da thunk it, eh? Kudos to the debutant for grasping this seemingly obvious point in spite of his skipper's example though.its almost like you don't have to bat like a ****ing idiot with lots of intent and york yourself to make test match runs.
How did Burns look? I've read a lot about his somewhat idiosyncratic technique, but have never actually seen him bat.